Oh dear

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by Just Zis Guy, Jan 26, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    So much for new years' resolutions

    I posted to uk.tosspot. But I didn't cross-post, honest I didn't.

    I was so angry about that woman fined £135 and six points for casually wiping out a 17-year-old that
    I couldn't restrain myself.

    Guy
    ===
    ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
    dynamic DNS permitting)
    NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
    work. Apologies.
     
    Tags:


  2. Gary

    Gary Guest

    UK.TOSSPOT?

    Is this the name for a car newsgroup?

    Gary :)

    "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > So much for new years' resolutions
    >
    > I posted to uk.tosspot. But I didn't cross-post, honest I didn't.
    >
    > I was so angry about that woman fined £135 and six points for casually wiping out a 17-year-old
    > that I couldn't restrain myself.
    >
    > Guy
    > ===
    > ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
    > dynamic DNS permitting)
    > NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
    > work. Apologies.
     
  3. Hi Just zis Guy, you know?,

    On Mon, 13 Jan 2003 22:35:54 +0000, in uk.rec.cycling Just zis Guy, you know? put fingers to
    keyboard and tapped away writing...

    Message ID:- <[email protected]>

    > So much for new years' resolutions
    >
    > I posted to uk.tosspot. But I didn't cross-post, honest I didn't.
    >
    > I was so angry about that woman fined £135 and six points for casually wiping out a 17-year-old
    > that I couldn't restrain myself.

    I can understand your fury. However, it is not the woman's fault that she was punished so leniently,
    it was the court's fault, or, indeed, the entire British legal system's fault.

    The cagers you post to in uk.tosspot don't give a stuff about one 17 year old's life, and they'll
    simply rejoice at the news that one of their own got off so lightly.

    It's only when cagers get 5 years to life for causing death by careless driving that they'll think
    twice before making such dangerous overtaking manoeuvers. £135 plus £60 costs would seem lenient for
    the careless cager who ran me down bike while I was riding in a cycle lane.

    >
    > Guy
    > ===
    > ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
    > dynamic DNS permitting)
    > NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
    > work. Apologies.

    --

    Best wishes, Agincourt

    And gentlemen in England now a-bed Shall think themselves accursed they were not here, And hold
    their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day.
     
  4. Chris French

    Chris French Guest

    In message <[email protected]>, Ace Agincourt
    <agincourt1.don'[email protected]> writes
    >It's only when cagers get 5 years to life for causing death by careless driving that they'll think
    >twice before making such dangerous overtaking manoeuvers.

    Actually I doubt that it would make any great difference. The driver does not expect to kill
    someone, and any such punishment will be far removed in their mind - not that I don't think it
    should happen.

    However, such a change in the law to give increased sentences to drivers in such instances is only
    likely to occur when public attitudes have changed enough, as they have with drink driving, and are
    starting to with regard to speeding.

    Chris French, Leeds
     
  5. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    Gary wrote:

    > UK.TOSSPOT?

    aka uk.transport.

    --
    Guy
    ===
    I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're
    about it perhaps you could think when we talk of bicycles, that you see them printing their proud
    wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.
     
  6. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    On Tue, 14 Jan 2003 19:01:53 +0000, Ace Agincourt <agincourt1.don'[email protected]> wrote:

    >I can understand your fury. However, it is not the woman's fault that she was punished so
    >leniently, it was the court's fault, or, indeed, the entire British legal system's fault.

    Indeed. I have written to my MP and to the Secretary of State for Transport - and a fat lot of good
    it will do.

    >The cagers you post to in uk.tosspot don't give a stuff about one 17 year old's life, and they'll
    >simply rejoice at the news that one of their own got off so lightly.

    Maybe. I see some evidence that one or two of them have thought about
    it. Paul "Mr Safety" Smith thinks that overtaking a cyclist so close he crashes and dies is but a
    minor thing, of course.

    >It's only when cagers get 5 years to life for causing death by careless driving that they'll think
    >twice before making such dangerous overtaking manoeuvers. £135 plus £60 costs would seem lenient
    >for the careless cager who ran me down bike while I was riding in a cycle lane.

    My view is that where a driver kills someone through negligent drivintg there should be an automatic
    minimum twelve month ban, training course and extended retest (cost to driver) plus a fine of (as a
    guide) the Inland Revenue taxable benefit value fo the car they were driving at the time.

    The courts would be free to increase this to a maximum of (say) 15 years in prison, unlimited ban,
    unlimited fine. And of course CUT THEIR GOOLIES OFF because it's the only language these people
    understand.

    Guy
    ===
    ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
    dynamic DNS permitting)
    NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
    work. Apologies.
     
  7. Dave

    Dave Guest

    "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > On Tue, 14 Jan 2003 19:01:53 +0000, Ace Agincourt <agincourt1.don'[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >I can understand your fury. However, it is not the woman's fault that she was punished so
    > >leniently, it was the court's fault, or, indeed, the entire British legal system's fault.
    >
    > Indeed. I have written to my MP and to the Secretary of State for Transport - and a fat lot of
    > good it will do.
    >
    > >The cagers you post to in uk.tosspot don't give a stuff about one 17 year old's life, and they'll
    > >simply rejoice at the news that one of their own got off so lightly.
    >
    > Maybe. I see some evidence that one or two of them have thought about
    > it. Paul "Mr Safety" Smith thinks that overtaking a cyclist so close he crashes and dies is but a
    > minor thing, of course.
    >
    > >It's only when cagers get 5 years to life for causing death by careless driving that they'll
    > >think twice before making such dangerous overtaking manoeuvers. £135 plus £60 costs would seem
    > >lenient for the careless cager who ran me down bike while I was riding in a cycle lane.
    >
    > My view is that where a driver kills someone through negligent drivintg there should be an
    > automatic minimum twelve month ban, training course and extended retest (cost to driver) plus a
    > fine of (as a guide) the Inland Revenue taxable benefit value fo the car they were driving at
    > the time.
    >
    > The courts would be free to increase this to a maximum of (say) 15 years in prison, unlimited ban,
    > unlimited fine. And of course CUT THEIR GOOLIES OFF because it's the only language these people
    > understand.
    >
    > Guy
    > ===
    > ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
    > dynamic DNS permitting)
    > NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
    > work. Apologies.

    There appears to be a slight oversight when these cases are considered. The car driver is in control
    of a machine that can very effectively kill if used incorrectly. As a result of this, it should be
    their total responsibility to ensure they do not use it to kill, and *no excuse* (except severe,
    unavoidable mechanical failure)should be sufficient to alleviate that responsibility. If one expects
    to be able to get away with taking a life 'by accident' whilst in control of one of these machines,
    then they should not be allowed behind the wheel. I hereby propose that as part of the driving test
    henceforth, a contract should be signed, in advance, by the candidates, in which they admit
    responsibility and liability for any accident involving either cyclists or pedestrians, after all,
    they are the ones in control of the *potential* death machine, right ? Then, if they cause a fatal
    injury whilst in control of their machine, CUT THEIR GOOLIES OFF!!...over to you Guy ;-)

    Dave
     
  8. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    On Tue, 14 Jan 2003 23:21:48 -0000, "Dave" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >if they cause a fatal injury whilst in control of their machine, CUT THEIR GOOLIES OFF!!

    It's the only language these people understand. Obviously.

    Guy
    ===
    ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
    dynamic DNS permitting)
    NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
    work. Apologies.
     
  9. "Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >
    > "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > On Tue, 14 Jan 2003 19:01:53 +0000, Ace Agincourt <agincourt1.don'[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > I hereby propose that as part of the driving test henceforth, a contract should be signed, in
    > advance, by the candidates, in which they admit responsibility and liability for any accident
    > involving either cyclists or pedestrians, after all, they are the ones in control of the
    > *potential* death machine, right ? Then, if they cause a fatal injury whilst in control of their
    > machine, CUT THEIR GOOLIES OFF!

    Not a bad idea, but then they wouldn't be able to think and would be a burden on society.

    Cheers Rich
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...